Grit X Pro

If your goal is training, I don't think I'd get the Samsung. Seems to me like you'd be paying for "smart watch" features (which I personally don't want) when you want "training / health monitoring" as the primary function. Polar Pacer is $300 USD. The Pro is $350. Polar Unite is $200 USD. Probably also worth looking at Sunto (Run) and Coros (Pace 3) too. Both under $250 USD. No mater what you're thinking about getting, if you live in the US you should absolutely wait a month and buy on Black Friday. But if you're looking for the best value, Polar probably won't be the right brand (especially if you live in the US). I like their watches (currently have a GritX Pro1). But their pricing strategy seems is pretty odd. They aren't on par with a company like Apple, but they seem to have adopted an Apple-light pricing strategy.

I think this was true when I got my GritX Pro \~ 2 years ago. It might even still be true with some watch series. Your Vantage V3 is $700 USD. For price, Garmin's Forerunner 970 is comprable at $750. The 970 has maps and has a sapphire lens for $750. If I'm spending $700 on a watch, personally I'd spend the extra $50 for the sapphire...but I'm rough on my watches. Which is why I like the GritX line. But the value here is pretty terrible now IMO. X2 Pro is $1000. Same price as the Fenix 8, which I think is probably a better watch. Basically every review I saw for the X2pro when it came out was "really nice watch...but the pricing strategy here is very aggressive making it a poor value". X2 is $800 in the US. Same price as the Fenix E (not sapphire though). And more expensive than any of the Forerunners (970 is $750). I think I'd take the 970 over the X2 if I was going to spend that much (and I don't want to spend that much). If the X2 was at price parity in the US vs. rest of the world, it would be a reasonable value IMO (and would make the X2 Pro kind of irrelevant IMO). It's not clear that the Polar watches are better than similarly priced Garmin watches IMO. Looking for price parity on similar (maybe worse?) watches vs. the brand with the highest name recognition / snob appeal in the market doesn't seem like a good strategy for the much less well known small brand to me. Brand wise, Polar is probably more on par with Suunto, but the value is so much less with Polar. Vertial 2 is $600, and probably comparable to the X2 (pro?). Race 2 is $500. I would strongly prefer to buy another Grit series watch when my current watch dies. And I would also prefer to stay in the Polar eco system (unlike many I like the app vs. hate it...and I also think that staying with Polar will mean fewer connectivity issues with my H10s). But I can't justify spending an extra $300 - $500 for a comparable watch when compared to Suunto. And if I was going to spend that much, I'd probably just get the Forerunner 970 and save the $50 over the X2.

I would go for the Grit X2 (latest, just a bit more expensive than the M3). Polar watches have the same OS, so the only difference will be design, materials (for sturdiness go for the Grit X2), weight and battery life. For premium feel and long battery life go for the V3 or Grit X Pro. Pacer is old, it has MIPS display, the above mentioned have nice AMOLED. Ignite does not have maps and navigation. You cannot import workouts to polar flow platform, but if you wear your watch during workouts it will sync them to Strava. You can even pair your compatible sensors too (H10, speed/cadence), so you won’t miss any data.

No Polar at all?? (I use a Polar Grit X)

I have been using Garmin, Suunto and Polar watches over the last decade. I was most satisfied with Suunto. Imho it has the best build quality and the best GPS and heart tracking. Garmin on the other hand has the best software, but I am not a fan of the hardware, plus they are pretty expensive for the higher end models. Polar is a bit in between. I stumbled upon the Trex 3 which is on sale for 145 euro atm. This is a bargain compared to the other brands. Plus it seems a bit of a crossover between sportswatch and smartwatch. I read a lot of reviews where most complaints are about software, coaching, sleeptracking, etc. Most of the reviews being pretty old and I read there are still updates upto 2027. I don't really care about sleeptracking, but some sort of coaching would be nice, because currently non of my watches so this (accurately). What I especially care for is (very) accurate GPS tracking, preferable accurate barometer and if even possible accurate heartrate tracking. I also like the smartwatch gimmicks, the long battery life and the screen. Daily tracking is a nice add on. I will use the watch on a daily basis. Other than that I'll use it for triathlon, running, swimming (both open water and pool), cycling and time trial and mountainbiking. Preferably of coarse with reliable data like strokes and stuff while swimming. I currently use a Polar Grit X which which has accurate tracking, but the software isn't all that either. Plus it hardly has smartwatch features, no amoled screen and minor issues lately. Would this Trex 3 be a step up? Or should I just cough up some more bucks and go with the big brands?

The day you really need a watch in the middle of the woods, in the forest, and reliable, routable maps, etc., then you'll realize that Garmin is  years ahead of the crap mentioned in the thread. I've had over 15 Garmins, all Fenix, and I've had Polar Grit X, Suunto, Coros, and those Samsung toys, Pixel, etc. The day you're actually in a real forest and need routable maps and a battery life of two days or more using GPS, you'll never again mention those plastic toys you're mentioning. Until then, keep using those toy watches and considering these idiotic trade-ins.